The Centre cannot continue to evade(बचना) its legal obligation to create a mechanism to implement(लागू/अमल में लाना) the Supreme Court’s final verdict(निर्णय) in the Cauvery dispute(विवाद). This was the broad message conveyed(सूचित करना) by the court on Monday when it admonished(चेताया/धिक्कारना) the government for failing to frame a scheme within the six-week time limit given earlier. For the Centre, it was embarrassing(शर्मनाक/संकोचशील) to be asked to demonstrate(प्रदर्शन करना/दिखाना) its bona fides by submitting a draft scheme for the court’s consideration by May 3. The court’s frustration(निराशा/पराजय) was evident, as the Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India was surprised and disappointed that the Centre had not put a scheme in place or sought an early clarification. It is obvious that a decree on the sharing of water requires a mechanism to give effect to it. It is an evasion of responsibility on the Centre’s part to set off a round of litigation(मुकदमेबाज़ी) just to determine(निर्धारित) the nature of such a mechanism. At the same time, it is easy to understand the reluctance(अनिच्छा) of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government at the Centre. It clearly fears that framing a scheme may adversely affect its prospects in Karnataka, which goes to the polls next month. In the conflict(संघर्ष/झगड़ा) between duty and electoral considerations, the BJP has chosen the latter.

It is a matter of satisfaction that the apex court has indicated that it will pass a binding order soon. The Centre should redeem(छुड़ाना) itself by complying(पालन करना) with the latest order. Meanwhile, the ambiguity(अस्पष्टता/संदिग्धता) over whether ‘scheme’ refers to or differs from the ‘Cauvery Management Board’ envisaged(परिकल्पित) in the Cauvery Tribunal’s order has caused great disquiet(चिंता/परेशानी) in Tamil Nadu. This raises the question whether the court should have allowed an element of ambiguity in its judgment by referring to a ‘scheme’, while not expressly(स्पष्ट रूप से) modifying the portion of the Tribunal’s order that talks of a ‘Cauvery Management Board’ and a ‘Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’. This is why even the court’s appeal for peace has not assuaged sentiments in Tamil Nadu, where tempers are soaring in some quarters. Unfortunately, a fringe has taken centre stage, focussing almost their entire protest on the Indian Premier League tournament. As a political tactic, threatening(धमकी/भयसूचक) a hugely popular cricket tournament is bound to attract national attention. If this is what some of the protestors wanted, then they have succeeded in their objective, even if this has come at the cost of some disruption(विघटन/दरार). However, targeting the IPL is irrational(तर्कहीन/बेसमझ). If the premise is that fun and entertainment are inappropriate(अनुचित/अयोग्य)) in this time of crisis(संकट), why pick on one tournament alone? Moreover, IPL matches have nothing to do with the Cauvery dispute; more importantly, they have nothing to with either the Centre or the State. Choosing a soft target may bring high visibility, but it makes no sense to mix a serious inter-State dispute with sport and entertainment — certainly(निश्चित रूप से) not in a disruptive and violent(हिंसक/उग्र) manner.